Perhaps the most tragic dissonance in film occurs when ideology and filmmaking prowess fail to match. Say what you will about the frightening Nazi propaganda of Leni Riefenstahl’s “The Triumph of the Will,” but the picture is undeniably well-made. More recently, “The Homesman” and “Big Eyes” offered appealing feminist viewpoints, yet both were rather tediously assembled.
Matthew Warchus’ film “Pride” details the unlikely coalition between British miners and LGBT activists to protest the destructive policies of the Thatcher administration. These are good people fighting for what they think is right, so the natural reaction would be wanting to support them. But, overall, the film fails to capture the swelling spirit of a fellow progressively minded film like Gus Van Sant’s “Milk.”
It is not a particularly enlightening look at the nature of successful activism. It lack insight into discrimination and homophobia on both the institutional and the individual level. It does not provide any strong emotional pull towards a character (though the story of closeted Joe embracing his identity has some touching moments). Although, I will say, seeing Imelda Staunton (best known as Dolores Umbridge from “Harry Potter”) breaking it down at a gay club was quite a sight.
What’s old must become new again in order to keep movie studios’ back catalogues fresh so they can earn money; thus, we end up with “Maleficent,” a reimagining of their “Sleeping Beauty” tale. It’s a film that uses the same formula as “Oz the Great and Powerful” and then splashes it with flourishes from Tim Burton’s 2010 revisionist “Alice in Wonderland.” It trots out the familiar mythology – only now in sleek CGI! – and then puts a few twists on it to justify the remake.
Analyzed in tandem with the Mouse House’s 2013 megahit “Frozen,” the film yields interesting insights into the psyche of Disney. This marks their second straight tentpole that does not give the audience the expected male-female romantic ending, leaving them to ponder the many different forms love can take. One can only wonder where these progressive messages will ultimately end.
But that’s about all the intellectual discussion I can pull out of “Maleficent.” It’s a sloppily written film filled with feckless characters whose discernible motivations are few and far between. The movie needlessly complicates the simple 1959 classic story, making it a slow plod. And, from a perspective likely only depressing to me, it reduces great actors like Imelda Staunton and Lesley Manville to playing cartoonish fairies in a failed comic relief subplot.
What should be the star in absence of these elements, the visual effects, are even quite confused. Scenes designed to showcase the work of artists who work in the medium of pixels are cluttered with details that don’t cohere for a unified look. At times, the film resembles the Pandora of James Cameron’s “Avatar;” at others, Burton’s “Alice.” The opening scenes resemble an illustrated children’s storybook … and then, there are 3 mo-cap fairies. The whole collective vibe recalls a 2002 video game like “Kingdom Hearts.”
The year 2014 is fast approaching, which portends a myriad of things for people. For many, it is a fresh start, a chance to renew lapsed goals and resolve to become a better person. Yet for all of us, it is an inescapable marker of time slipping through our fingers. For what is a year but just two signposts of elapsed time, a set of brackets to contain our ups and downs?
Mike Leigh’s “Another Year,” my pick for the final “F.I.L.M. of the Week” in 2013, looks at this widely-recognized span of time from a refreshingly realistic angle. It’s not a tale that escalates dramatically like a conventional fictional plot. Rather, Leigh presents four chapters – one for each season – in the lives of ordinary people going about their business. There is not necessarily any grand significance to their trials and triumphs, but in simply recognizing these normally unrecognized moments, Leigh grants them a beautiful dignity.
To detail the occurrences of “Another Year” in any great detail would be to spoil the flow of the picture. Like many films by Mike Leigh, it involves a large ensemble cast who are more than just actors in the movie – they are true collaborators. Their characters drop in and out of the story with the exception of the two anchors of the film, the old married couple Tom and Gerri Hepple (Jim Broadbent and Ruth Sheen, respectively). They are a solid bedrock for their many friends, steady and resolute from their many years of experience weathering whatever is thrown at them.
There’s no indication that the year chronicled in “Another Year” is one of any particular challenge for Tom and Gerri. Both continue to work their jobs, tend their house, care for their grown son, and love each other. They even manage to stay relatively unfazed by their erratic friend Mary, played by Lesley Manville in what should have been an Oscar-nominated performance. (Sadly, confusion over whether she was a leading or a supporting actress may have cost her a shot at a trophy she deserved to win.)
As she endures a particularly biting mid-life crisis with an accompanying lack of direction and self-worth, Mary provides the tension that makes “Another Year” more than just pure naturalism. Manville is nothing short of stunning in the role, providing just about every emotion one can feel over the course of a year within the film. Leigh closes with a long-held shot of her face, and it is truly devastating. Not unlike the final shot of “Zero Dark Thirty,” all the action and events of the film are ultimately reflected in the face. And in “Another Year,” the events are life itself, in all its small victories and tough disappointments.
Sometimes, animated movies are so busy trying to be clever that they forget to be charming or – dare I say it – cute. If they lack the effortless ease of Pixar and the occasional DreamWorks release, they seem to often think that the charm flows directly from the creativity.
“Arthur Christmas” is all the evidence I need to believe that the hypothesis above isn’t true. It puts a digital, industrial spin on the age-old Christmas story of Santa Claus delivering presents to children all over the world. Moreover, it manages to make its version of the yearly phenomena both funny and plausible.
The opening scene, showing the delivery from the perspective of the elves frantically working in mission control to ensure a successful Christmas, was absolutely fantastic. It’s ingenuity at its finest, and I was braced for a delightful ride full of holiday spirit.
But then the film shifted towards the family dynamics of the Claus family, led by the lazy patriarchal Santa Claus voiced by Jim Broadbent. His son Steve (the voice of House – I mean, Hugh Laurie) is gunning hard for him to retire so he can fulfill his birthright. Meanwhile, there’s Arthur (voice of James McAvoy) running around with an unfettered optimism and idealism, something his family shrugs off and attempts to marginalize.
“Arthur Christmas” depicts the wee hours of Christmas morning when the family fails. Well, really, Santa fails first as one gift does not get delivered, and Arthur takes it upon himself to ensure it gets received. Along with an overeager wrapping elf and his grandfather, a former Santa Claus (voiced by Billy Mack – I mean, Bill Nighy) that shares Arthur’s enthusiasm, their adventure is most definitely exciting. But with weak characterization and an overemphasis on craftiness, “Arthur Christmas” is hardly a cup of Christmas cheer for all to enjoy. C+ /
Sometimes, animated movies are so busy trying to be clever that they forget to be charming or – dare I say it – cute. If they lack the effortless ease of Pixar and the occasional DreamWorks release, they seem to often think that the charm flows directly from the creativity.
Marshall and the Movies 
Recent Comments